The Tama County Administration Building at 104 W State St. in Toledo will be closed to public until further notice.

This week’s Tama County Supervisors meeting kicked off right after Supervisor David Turner got back from his pre-meeting bathroom break. Ben Daleske, the Tama County Engineer, gave his report, saying that they’ve been stockpiling rock in Chelsea, and they’ve been receiving rock from Salt Creek in Garwin as well. PCI is needing to finish up some dirt work for the project, then it should be opened in the next couple of weeks. Manatt’s is close to finishing up the shouldering for the project. They will be painting lines this week, and the road should hopefully be open by Thanksgiving.

The supervisors had a discussion about releasing roads and the Salt Creek Phase 1 project. They ultimately decided to wait until the project is done and then to come back to have the full board accept or deny the release.

The supervisors approved the Closed Session Checklist. This is a new, one-of-a-kind policy made to ensure that all rules are followed when going into a closed session. This stems from the complaint from former Tama County Human Resources Director/Insurance Administrator Tammy Wise to the Iowa Public Information Board. The supervisors approved an informal resolution that explained how the checklist came to be and the reasoning behind it.

The informal resolution stated the following: Tama County is a county in Central Iowa, which is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors. Until February 2025, Tammy Wise was employed as a Human Resources Manager for Tama County. In early 2025, the Board contracted with Paul Gruefe, a human resources independent contractor, to perform an audit of the county’s office of human resources. On February 3, 2025, the Board held a regularly scheduled meeting, which included the agenda item “Possible closed session for discussion and possible action under Iowa Code 21.5.1 (g), 21.5.1 (h), 21.5.1 (i).” During this session, which lasted approximately one hour, the five Supervisors met privately with Greufe and Wise to consider the latter’s potential discharge. Following the closed session, the Board returned to open session and voted 3-2 to terminate Wise’s employment with Tama County, a decision which was formalized on February 10, 2025. According to the Board’s response and signed affidavits, Wise received prior notice from Greufe on January 31, 2025 that the possible closed session agenda item would be concerning her and that it would be her decision whether or not she wanted the discussion to be in private. Wise attended the February 3 session. After approximately an hour spent on other agenda items, the Board entered a brief recess. During this recess, Gruefe allegedly had a one-on-one conversation with Wise outside the meeting room, in which he asked whether she wanted a closed session and Wise stated Page 1 of 3 25FC:0018 Informal Resolution something to the effect of “of course I wanted it in closed session, I don’t want all of this out in public.” The Board then relied on Greufe to enter closed session, with Wise in attendance. According to Wise’s own signed affidavit, Wise never had the opportunity to review Greufe’s email prior to the meeting, as it was sent on January 31, a Friday, and the meeting began at 8:30 a.m. on February 3, the following Monday. Wise asserts that she regularly attended meetings and had no prior notice that the closed session item on the agenda would be about her, as she was not named, and the only indication of the closed session’s purpose came from the three Code sections cited. The agenda did not mention Wise’s name or position, nor did it state that the termination of an employee would be considered. Wise agrees that she spoke with Greufe during the brief recess and that Greufe told her the session would be about her when asked. However, Wise alleges that she was never asked whether she wanted a closed session and never requested one from the Board, either directly or through Greufe. On February 10, 2025, Wise filed a formal complaint 25FC:0018, alleging that the Board violated Chapter 21 by going into closed session under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i) without an affirmative request from Wise as the employee whose discharge was being considered. Pursuant to Iowa Code §§ 23.6(5) and (6), IPIB staff reviewed all audio recordings available for the February 3, 2025 meeting. Based on this review, there is no question that the closed session was held “[t]o evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose . . . discharge [was] being considered” and that the closed session could reasonably be found “necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation.” Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i). The sole dispute between the parties is whether Wise requested a closed session, which is the subject of directly conflicting affidavits signed by Greufe and Wise. Following mediation, the parties were able to reach an informal resolution intended to prevent similar open meetings issues from arising in future closed sessions.

The supervisors also approved a meeting with their HR consultant to review/approve the handbook and union negotiations on Nov. 25 at 9:30 am. Claims totaling $140,336.33 were approved.